2023 QCCQ 8296, 2023 QCCQ 8296

Protection de la jeunesse — 232245 2023 QCCQ 8296 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-040067-225 525-41-040068-223 DATE: June 1st, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY : Mr.

JUSTICE CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of : X born on [...], 2011 Y born on [...], 2016 The Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux A applicant - and - A, the mother - and - B, the father respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (section 38 of the Youth Protection Act) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information that may lead to the identification of a child or his parents.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine. [ Y.P.A. art. 9.2 et 9.3 and 135 ] Introduction [ 1 ] The present judgment renders and gives reasons for a decision taken under advisement on May 11, 2023. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seized the Court with Applications under

section 38 of the Youth Protection Act requesting that the security or development of the children be declared in danger. [ 3 ] In Applications filed on May 27, 2022 , the Director alleges the following:

3.1. as relevant background information, the situation of the children has been known in the past to the Director of Youth Protection as well as the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, due primarily but not exclusively to the parental conflicts as well as accusations of the mother’s inappropriate disciplinary reactions; 3.2. as relevant background information as well, since June 25, 2021, the situation of the children has been followed by the Director of Youth Protection due to concerns of neglect and psychological ill treatment pursuant to an Agreement on Voluntary Measures; 3.3. the issues surrounding neglect centered mainly on the children’s school absenteeism; at this point in time, the situation has somewhat improved; 3.4. throughout the interventions of the youth protection worker since June 2021, the father was very uncollaborative and would not allow the youth protection worker to enter his home; 3.5. it is only since around May 2022 that the father began to somewhat collaborate; 3.6. the children reside with both parents, as per a shared custody agreement through Superior Court; 3.7. the children are seriously and repeatedly subjected to behaviour on the part of the parents that could cause harm to the children, and the children’s parents fail to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) the parents have a longstanding history of a conflictual relationship;

b) when the parents were together, incidents of conjugal violence occurred by the father towards the mother;

c) the father has a longstanding criminal history;

d) the parents refuse to talk with one another;

e) the mother has expressed that she believes the father has unregistered guns in the home;

f) both parents have expressed fearing for the children’s safety in the other parent’s home;

g) it appears, at times, as if both the child and sibling adopt the father’s negative attitudes towards the mother;

h) there are concerns that the children may be victims of parental alienation; 3.8. Y is the victim of bodily injury or is subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the mother, and the mother fails to take the necessary steps to put an end to the situation, more particularly but not restrictively in that:

a) Y has significant behavioural issues which consist of violent aggressive behaviours;

b) the mother acknowledges having difficulties managing Y’s behaviours;

c) the mother has admitted to spanking Y;

d) the mother was advised by the youth protection worker that physical disciplinary measures are not acceptable, and she has been trying to work on that issue;

e) on at least one (1) known occasion, the mother put Y into his room and held the door shut as a form of punishment; Y consequently vomited due to his dysregulation during that time;

f) Y has expressed that on more that one occasion, the mother has hit, knocked and pushed him;

g) Y disclosed being dragged by his shirt collar into his room by his mother, who then proceeded to throw him onto the bed, resulting in him sustaining a bruise on his leg;

h) Y has expressed that his mother has locked him into the bathroom as a form of discipline, this resulting as well in him vomiting;

i) X has expressed that the mother has pushed her on at least two (2) different occasions, with one time being on her chest; thereby resulting in her bumping into the garbage can;

j) X expressed witnessing the mother once kicking Y on his back after he fell on the floor when trying to put on a sweater;

k) X expressed that she has seen the mother hitting Y and consequently noted bruising on his back;

l) school officials report that the children appear less anxious and better cared for during the weeks when they are in the care of the father;

m) neither parent nor school officials have ever noted any marks or bruising on the children; 3.9. X runs a serious risk of becoming the victim of bodily injury or being subjected to unreasonable methods of upbringing by the mother, due to the aforementioned numerous allegations of inappropriate physical disciplining by the mother towards Y, as well as the incidents which X experienced; 3.10. following the recent divulgation of this new information concerning incidents of inappropriate physical discipline, coupled with the fact that both children refused to return to the mother’s care, immediate protective measures were applied and the children were

entrusted to the care of the father; 3.11. on May 20, 2022, an extension of immediate protective measures was granted by the Honorable Patrice Hurtubise for a period of five (5) working days; 3.12. both children continue to refuse to return to their mother’s care at this time. [ 4 ] Based on these allegations and on events that have taken place since the Applications were filed, the Director is asking that the children’s security or development be declared compromised for psychological ill-treatment and more specifically “parental alienation” by the father in the case of X.

For Y, the Director is also alleging that the mother used inappropriate discipline on him on at least one occasion. [ 5 ] The mother admits the grounds of compromission as set out by the Director. [ 6 ] The father agrees as well, except with the Court specifying he is responsible for “parental alienation” in X’s case. [ 7 ] Both children have their own lawyer acting under a legal mandate.

X’s lawyer has the same position as the father (no need to specify “parental alienation”) whereas Y’s lawyer agrees with the two grounds of compromission alleged regarding her young client. [ 8 ] Thus, in regard to the question of compromission, the main issue is whether the court should specify in X’s case that there has been “ parental alienation ” by the father. [ 9 ] In terms of corrective measures , it should be noted that the parents have shared custody of the children, as set out by the Superior court.

However, for the reasons mentioned in the Applications, the two children have been entrusted to their father over the last year and the mother’s contacts have varied over time. For several months, there was no contact between X and her mother. In the last few months, contacts resumed and have recently been up to three nights in a row. [ 10 ] The Director, the father and X’s lawyer recommend that X remain entrusted to her father and that the Court authorize the Director to determine the frequency and modality of maternal contacts; X herself would however like to spend one weekend per month with her father.

The mother is asking the Court to set a minimum of three nights per week at her home, with a clear plan to increase visits to shared custody. [ 11 ] Y is spending two nights per week and the Sunday with his mother. The Director and the father are asking that the Director set the frequency and modality of the child’s visits with his mother. Y himself has voiced wanting to spend more time with his mother but his lawyer agrees with the Director and the father.

The mother is asking for a minimum of three nights per week with increases as soon as possible. [ 12 ] Thus, the second issue concerns the mother’s contacts with both children . [ 13 ] All the parties agree with the Director remaining involved for at least the next nine months and to various secondary measures as set out in the Director’s last report.

However, there are two issues. [ 14 ] The first concerns whether the Court should order that Y receive medication for his ADHD if this is recommended by his pediatrician, a proposition accepted by the father and supported by the other parties except the mother who wants to decide herself if this is necessary, even if recommended by the child’s doctor. [ 15 ] The second issue concerns therapy that the children should receive . X is participating in individual therapy, a measure all parties agree with.

However, the mother is asking that the two children be involved in a form of therapy with her and in addition, that Y receive individual therapy. Y’s lawyer agrees with her client receiving therapy but the parties do not support the mother’s request that the children participate in a form of therapy with her. [ 16 ] Thus, there are four specific issues that need to be addressed in regard to the measures. Evidence [ 17 ] By consent, the Court proceeded in the case of both children at the same time. [ 18 ] Several reports were filed by both the Director and the mother.

In addition to this, the youth protection worker, Dr. Catherine Cloutier (the psychologist who conducted an assessment of the family to determine if there was parental alienation) and both parents testified. [ 19 ] In regard to the issue of compromission , the Court retains from the evidence that the parents separated in late 2016 while the mother was pregnant with Y.

The parents both have claims and counter-claims about conjugal life with the other parent – conjugal violence and criminal activity by the father, drug use and prostitution by the mother…. – and have struggled with coparenting since their separation despite the fact that since around 2017, there has been a clear shared-custody court order and youth protection involvement. [ 20 ] The mother has struggled with mental health issues and been followed by the Douglas hospital for the last ten years.

She has borderline personality traits and suffers from a psychosomatic disorder (cyclic vomiting syndrome) which makes her suddenly very sick and unable to care for the children if they are in her care. The mother has been using marijuana on a daily basis since her teenage years and both her doctor and psychiatrist have recommended that she stop consuming at least long enough to see if her consumption plays a role in her sickness.

The mother dismisses this possibility and refuses to address her drug consumption. [ 21 ] Over the years, in addition to issues of parental conflict, the mother sometimes resorted to using inappropriate discipline on the children and the latter were therefore entrusted to the father for some periods. During these times or given the mother’s illness, X showed reluctance in resuming her relationship with her mother. For example, in a judgement rendered in April 2018, the undersigned

notes that after the mother had been aggressive with X at various times and in various ways (yelling, grabbing, pushing…), “ it took several months before she wanted to see her mother without supervision …” [1] As well, in a decision rendered in September 2019, the undersigned writes that after the mother suffered other medical issues, X stated that “ she no longer wished to stay with her mother .” [2] [ 22 ] Measures were put in place to help the mother deal with her personal issues and use appropriate discipline, and to help the parents in regard to their conflicts. [ 23 ] More recently, following the end of Court-ordered measures, the family was followed under a one-year “voluntary measures agreement” signed in June 2021 in regard to the parental conflict and the mother’s use of inappropriate discipline.

The measures were intended to help the parents around their conflictual relationship and “ help Ms. A to address her struggles with mental health … and develop better educational methods ”. [3] [ 24 ] Between June 2021 and May 2022, various difficulties persisted. The parents remained in conflict. The father would sometimes not share important information with the mother and did not collaborate adequately with the Director. The mother continued to consume marijuana and have bouts of sickness that rendered her unable to care for the children. During these times, she would get help from a neighbor or the father.

The children would end up spending more time with their father than their mother and complained about their mother’s illness. Y presented difficult behaviours, including being aggressive with his sister, and the mother struggled with imposing appropriate limits on him. [ 25 ] As well, the mother resorted to using inappropriate discipline.

DYP and police investigations in fact led the Director to conclude that the mother had resorted to inappropriate discipline several times on both children, as further set out in the Director’s present Application, the signalement evaluation report (D-3) and a recording X made of her mother where the latter is heard yelling at Y: “ Shut up! And stop! I had enough! You’ll fucking listen! You shut the fuck up before I come in here and smack you again! You understand me?

Shut up !” [4] [ 26 ] Given the above, the Director entrusted the children to their father on May 18, 2022 and a provisional Court order was rendered on May 30, 2022 maintaining the children with their father. At that time, it was further ordered that maternal contact be determined by the Director while taking judicial notice of the Director’s stated intention to take into consideration X’s wishes in this regard.

The Court also ordered a parental alienation assessment. [ 27 ] In the months leading to the beginning of the main hearing (Sec. 38 YPA) in November 2022, X refused to see her mother despite the father apparently encouraging said contacts. X maintained a very negative discourse regarding her mother but otherwise, was doing well. [ 28 ] The father collaborated better with the Director. [ 29 ] The mother continued to consume marijuana and to struggle with her health and with Y’s behaviour.

In July 2022, during a park visit with his mother, Y acted-out and was briefly brought to the Montreal Children’s Hospital’s psychiatry department. Visits were subsequently moved to DYP offices and the father had the child seen by his pediatrician, Dr. Mandich, who prescribed ADHD medication although Y had not yet received such a diagnosis. The father however did not follow-up on the giving the medication feeling that over time, Y’s behavior improved both at camp and at school and that the medication was no longer necessary, a decision supported by the youth protection worker. [ 30 ] Dr.

Catherine Cloutier completed the court-ordered psychological assessment of the family in October 2020 where she concludes that X is the subject of parental alienation of her mother by her father. In her meetings with X, Dr. Cloutier notes that the child holds very negative views of her mother, much like the father does, and that her refusal to see the mother stems in part from the father’s alienating behaviours and in part from the mother’s own “inadequate parenting behavior”, making it a “mixed case” of parental alienation. [5] Despite this, Dr.

Cloutier contended that X needed to be removed from her father’s care and placed in a neutral milieu (like a rehabilitation centre) in order to be able to slowly re-establish a relationship with her mother. [ 31 ] Dr.

Cloutier did not find that Y was the subject of parental alienation but recommended that his situation be closely monitored nonetheless to ensure that alienation not occur. [ 32 ] In meetings between the parties and the Court in preparation for the November hearing, the Director watered-down its claims of physical abuse by the mother (as set out in the Application and reports) and asked the Court to only declare compromission in relation to one or two incidents of inappropriate discipline by the mother on Y, and nothing in relation to X.

It would appear that this is at least partly based on the Director having become weary of some of X’s claims of abuse towards herself and her brother based on Dr. Cloutier’s parental alienation. [ 33 ] In any event, the mother admits to having occasionally resorted to inappropriate discipline on Y, like spanking him or putting him in his room and holding the door shut so he cannot get out, causing Y to become upset to the point where he can throw up.

Interim order [ 34 ] At the November 2022 main hearing, the Director sought a six-month interim order whereby X would be entrusted to a rehabilitation centre, a measure supported by the mother but contested by the father. X's attorney, acting under a legal mandate, also contested this recommendation, arguing that placement was premature and that other measures should be put in place prior to resorting to the child's placement.

He also suggested that if these measures are not quickly successful, the Director could seize the Court for an emergency hearing to determine if X’s placement was indeed needed. [ 35 ] The Director also recommended that Y be maintained with his father with an increase in maternal contact with a goal of returning to a joint custody arrangement. The father wanted the child to remain with him and agreed to maternal contact only if the mother's health allowed, a position which that was shared by Y's attorney.

The mother, however, was asking that Y be entrusted to her with supervised paternal access, and if not, that she have as much contact as possible with the child.

[ 36 ] In a written decision filed in the Court record on November 23, 2022, the undersigned maintained both children with the father until the continuation of the hearing in May 2023 with various secondary measures for the following reasons: • CONSIDERING the long history of severe parental conflict; • CONSIDERING that the children were living in a shared custody arrangement until May 2022; • CONSIDERING that on May 30, 2002, the Court provisionally entrusted the children to the father, ordered a parental capacity assessment and took judicial notice (1) that the Director would take into consideration X's wishes regarding contacts with her mother and (2) that the father would encourage said contacts; • CONSIDERING that the mother has longstanding mental health issues as well as somatic physical health issues which, according to her psychiatrist, may be exacerbated by her frequent marijuana use; • CONSIDERING the importance that the mother follow her psychiatrist's recommendation to cease consuming marijuana so that it can be determined how her consumption affects her medical issues; • CONSIDERING that when the mother becomes sick, she is incapable of caring for the children on her own; • CONSIDERING that in the past, and particularly since May 2022, X has taken the position to cease all contact with her mother, invoking her mother's health problems, aggressive behaviour towards her brother and some inappropriate comments made towards herself; • CONSIDERING that X's refusal to see her mother cannot reasonably be explained by the mother's difficulties and behaviour towards her and her brother; • CONSIDERING that Dr.

Catherine Cloutier, the psychologist who evaluated all family members, concludes that X is the subject of parental alienation of her mother by her father; • CONSIDERING that according to Dr. Cloutier, children subject of parental alienation are likely to develop serious personal and interpersonal difficulties and that it is important to act quickly; • CONSIDERING that Dr.

Cloutier recommends that X be placed in a neutral milieu that is free of family dynamics, with supervised access to her father at least until such time as she renews her relationship with her mother; • CONSIDERING that the father clearly still has reservations about the mother's ability to care for the children and accepts little to no responsibility for the current situation; • CONSIDERING the father's testimony to the effect that he has encouraged X to re-establish a relationship with her mother but that this has yielded essentially no results in over five months; • CONSIDERING that the father does not consider it particularly harmful that X not have contact with her mother; • CONSIDERING Dr.

Cloutier's opinion that if X is maintained with her father, it could be difficult to restore X's relationship with her mother and that the situation could further crystallize; • CONSIDERING that Dr.

Cloutier recommends that if X is placed, that she receive therapeutic support as soon as possible, if possible by a therapist with specific knowledge of severe parental conflict; • CONSIDERING that the Court considers this measure necessary, whether X is placed or not; • CONSIDERING that the youth protection worker has respected the terms of the last order and has not overly insisted on X resuming contact with her mother; • CONSIDERING that X recently accepted to see her mother, albeit after having been informed of the Director's recommendation that she be placed outside her father's home; • CONSIDERING that a group home has been identified for X that would allow her to continue to attend the same school; • CONSIDERING nonetheless that placement should be considered only as a last resort, after all other options have been explored; • CONSIDERING that the Court agrees to put off placement for a very short period to see if X does in fact renew her relationship with her mother in a satisfactory manner; • CONSIDERING that the mother has used inappropriate discipline on Y on at least one occasion; • CONSIDERING that Y is not affected to the same extent by the parental conflict in that he is open to seeing his mother, but that this situation needs to be monitored; • CONSIDERING that given behavioural issues, Y's doctor (Dr.

Mandich) recommended that the child take medication, that Y has not begun taking the medication and that his behaviour has improved; • CONSIDERING that the parents agree to have Y undergo an ADHD assessment and to speak to Dr. Mandich to decide if medication is required;

• CONSIDERING that Y continued to have contact with his mother but only recently began overnight visits with her; • CONSIDERING that it would be premature to entrust Y to his mother, even on a part-time basis; • CONSIDERING that the ideal situation is for the two children to be in a joint custody arrangement without being exposed to conflict or alienation; • CONSIDERING the importance that the two children continue to have contact with each other; • CONSIDERING both parents' openness to educator services and to some form of family therapy or co-parenting coaching; • CONSIDERING that Dr.

Cloutier has not had the opportunity to explain her observations and recommendations to the parents in person; • CONSIDERING that the case is continued on May 10 and 11, 2023 . • CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING INTERIM MEASURES: o FOR X : • ORDERS that X remain entrusted to her father; • ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contact between X and her mother be determined by the Director, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary; • ORDERS the father to ensure that X has contact with her mother as determined by the Director; • AUTHORIZES the Director to implement joint custody if the situation allows; • ORDERS that X receive therapeutic services, preferably by a therapist with experience in cases of parental conflict, within the next 30 days; • ORDERS the parties or their lawyers to present themselves before the undersigned at 9:30 on Monday, January 9, 2023 in room 2.02, pro forma, to determine if an emergency hearing regarding possible placement for X is required in the short term; o FOR Y : • ORDERS that Y be entrusted to his father; • ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between Y and his mother be determined by the DYP, with an aim to return to a joint custody arrangement; • ORDERS that Y undergo an ADHD assessment and RECOMMENDS that the assessment's recommendations be implemented; • RECOMMENDS that the parents consult Dr.

Mandich in order to decide if Y should take medication; o FOR BOTH CHILDREN: • ORDERS that the two children have contact with each other minimally once per week; • ORDERS that the mother not consume or be under the influence of marijuana while caring for the children: • RECOMMENDS that the mother follow her psychiatrist’s advice in regard to her use of marijuana; • RECOMMENDS that the mother receive services to address her substance marijuana dependency; • ORDERS the mother to only use disciplinary methods that have been previously discussed and approved by the Director; • ORDERS that the parents receive and collaborate with the services of an educator; • AUTHORIZES the Director to do unannounced visits in both parents’ homes; • AUTHORIZES the Director to meet the children alone; • ORDERS the parents not to denigrate, nor speak negatively of, the other parent in the children's presence, and to ensure that no one else does so in the children’s presence; • ORDERS the parents to encourage contacts with the other parent, as set out by the Director; • ORDERS the parents to take measures to put an end to the parental conflict; • ORDERS the Director to direct the parents towards resources to address and end the parental conflict; • ORDERS that the Director arrange for the parents, if they so wish, a meeting with Dr.

Cloutier so that she can explain her observations and recommendations to them;

• ORDERS the Director to provide the family with aid, counsel and assistance; • ORDERS the parents to fully collaborate with the Director; New developments [ 37 ] As mentioned in this decision, the hearing was set pro forma on January 9, 2023 to determine if an emergency hearing regarding possible placement for X was required in the short term. On that date, the parties informed the Court that such a hearing was not required. Consequently the hearing was continued to May 10 and 11, 2023. [ 38 ] Since November, the situation has improved somewhat. The Director feels that X has made real efforts to re-establish a relationship with her mother. She has respected a visiting

schedule prepared by the Director. She was comfortable spending two nights per week with her mother, and less so when it was recently bumped-up to three nights per week. Since January 2023, X is receiving therapy, which appears to be beneficial, and she is not presenting with any other major difficulties. Her request, mentioned earlier, to spend one weekend per month with her father appears to be reasonable. [ 39 ] Y has progressed to seeing his mother two nights per week (Wednesday and Thursday), plus the Sunday.

Y enjoys seeing his mother and voices wanting to spend equal time with both his parents. [ 40 ] Y is a very smart boy but is struggling academically and with his behavior, mostly with his mother and sometimes at his father’s. [ 41 ] Y recently underwent a psychological assessment which concluded that he does have ADHD, “combined type”, that is hyperactive / impulsive and inattentive, and that it is critical that he not be exposed to parental conflict. The psychologist recommends that the parents consult Dr.

Mandich regarding treatment options. [ 42 ] The father appears to be continuing to collaborate with the Director. He appears to be encouraging contacts and has ensured that the children respect all their visits with their mother. The mother sees positive changes in the father and has no major complaints about him, aside from him registering their daughter in a new school without consulting her. [ 43 ] The mother continues to have bouts of sickness that render her unable to care for the children. This occurs about monthly. During these times, when the mother’s friend, Mrs.

C, is not available to take the children, the father has done so. The mother does not always inform the Director when she asks her friend to assist with the children but has agreed to do so in the future. The mother has continued to use marijuana, including occasionally when caring for the children, and not sought any services in this regard. She is on a waiting list for personal therapy at the CLSC and agrees to the service once available. The mother struggles with various other health issues, including new ones like skin cancer and heart problems.

It is unsure what effect these ailments will have on her capacity to meet the children’s needs. There are no new reports of inappropriate parenting but the mother has struggled with Y’s behaviour and even resorted to calling the police for assistance on January 20, 2023 due to his out of control behavior. [ 44 ] Since then, the youth protection worker and educator have made themselves available until 9:00 pm when Y sleeps at his mother’s so they can intervene and provide help should another crisis like that of January 20 occur.

The Director has also attempted to provide the mother with parental coaching, but the mother took offence to some of the teachings and abruptly put an end to the sessions. Analysis and decision [ 45 ] Based on the above, the grounds of compromission sought by the parties, namely psychological ill-treatment of both children and physical abuse of Y by the mother, are well established.

Should the Court declare that in X’s case, the parental conflict includes “parental alienation” by the father? [ 46 ] First of all, “parental alienation” is not named or defined in the Youth Protection Act, not even within the definition of “psychological ill-treatment” [6] and there is no legal requirement for the Court to name it in its judgement. [ 47 ] Secondly, it is not because there was no counter-expertise to Dr. Cloutier’s assessment that the Court must fully endorse it. And the assessment does raise a number of questions. First of all, Dr.

Cloutier was not aware at the time of her testimony and recommendations that X had not really been pushed to have contact with her mother given the wording of the May Court order, nor that X had recently begun to show an opening to contact with her mother. As well, Dr. Cloutier’s opinion was that, given her diagnosis of “parental alienation”, little progress in the daughter-mother would likely take place without first placing X in a neutral setting. Yet, as we saw, there has been substantial movement in the situation in the last few months despite X remaining with her father. [ 48 ] Even if Dr.

Cloutier is correct, which may well be the case, it is not the “diagnosis” that is important but rather, a clear understanding of the parents’ dynamics and their effect on the child. This is extensively described in various reports and the undersigned’s various Court orders, including the present one. This evidence establishes that both parents contributed to the conflict in their own way. The father’s lack of enthusiasm regarding maternal involvement may have been excessive on occasion, but is certainly partially rooted in the mother’s difficulties and her behavior towards the children.

This aspect is substantiated by Dr. Cloutier’s conclusion that this is a “mixed case” of parental alienation. [ 49 ] In the Court’s view, apposing a label of “parental alienation by the father” oversimplifies this complex history, does not adequately convey how the mother’s difficulties have contributed to the father’s and X’s attitude towards the mother and points the entire focus of

intervention on the father. [ 50 ] Consequently, the Court will not specify that there has been “parental alienation” in X’s case. What about the mother’s contacts with the children? [ 51 ] Should the In terms of maternal contacts , the Director and father have demonstrated since the November 2022 Court order that they were able to quickly work on re-establishing the relationship between the mother and the children, X in particular, and have done so in a way that respects their best interest and rhythm. Ordering a minimum of contacts or a set

schedule of contacts does not give the Director the discretion to decrease, maintain or increase contacts according to how the situation evolves. Yet, this his is necessary given that the situation is in constant flux. The children can present reactions to certain situations. The mother is often sick and has new medical issues to deal with. She recently called the police to help her deal with Y. [ 52 ] That said, the general aim of the current order will be to maintain and increase contacts in order to reach shared custody as soon as the situation allows.

Should the Court order that Y receive medication if this be Dr. Mandich’s recommendation? [ 53 ] Y has ADHD and may require medication but his behaviour issues seem at least partly tied into his difficult family situation. This is the reason that the psychologist who diagnosed the ADHD emphasized the necessity that Y not be exposed to parental conflict. [ 54 ] The mother contests the request that Dr. Mandich decide if medication is required and although the father has agreed, he has shown in the past, even after having received a prescription from Dr.

Mandich, that he would only give Y ADHD medication if and when he believed that Y really required it. The youth protection worker even supported the father in this regard in the past. [ 55 ] Thus, the Court is not inclined to allow Dr. Mandich to unilaterally decide if Y should take ADHD medication, even after he has read the recent psychological assessment on the child. The Court does not even have knowledge of Dr.

Mandich’s expertise in this domain. [ 56 ] This decision by law belongs to the parents and at present, the Court does not have the elements to withdraw this right from the parents. [ 57 ] That said, the Court will order that the parents ensure that Dr. Mandich receive a copy of the psychological assessment and consult him in regard to medication, something both parents have agreed to. The Court will also recommend that Dr. Mandich’s recommendation be followed, but not order it. If necessary, the Court can always be seized of this issue.

Finally, what services should be ordered for the children? [ 58 ] The mother and Y’s lawyer want Y to receive therapy and the mother wants to be involved in a form of therapy with both children. [ 59 ] Y is only six years old but he has been through quite a bit. He is very intelligent yet he is struggling academically. He has displayed behavioral issues in various contexts and can be aggressive with family members. According to Dr.

Cloutier, he is at risk of being alienated from his mother and the more recent psychological assessment on Y states that: “Children with ADHD are at increased risk for emotional distress and issues of self-esteem. It is recommended that Y receive therapy to address his overreactions and anger issues. This may be partially provided through support personnel at his school. The conflictual relationship he has with his sister is concerning and symptomatic of the conflictual relationship they have witnessed, and which has been modelled for them.

Y’s extreme reactions when with his mother are symptomatic of trauma.” [7] [ 60 ] Thus, it is clear that despite Y’s young age, he should have an outlet to express himself. Should the therapist feel, given his age or other factors, that the therapy is not beneficial, the therapy should be terminated. [ 61 ] X is already engaged in individual therapy where, presumably, various family issues are being addressed. She is slowly building a relationship with her mother. She has not indicated an openness to participate in therapy with her mother. Thus, this measure does not appear necessary at present.

Additional measures [ 62 ] Before other forms of family therapy are put in place, it would be important that the parents address their personal issues to better understand how their past experiences and their present behaviours contribute to the conflict that the children are exposed to. Although things have currently improved in this front, this remains a priority. This has been recommended by the experts and remains necessary given that the situation remains fragile.

Thus, the Court will strongly recommend that both parents participate in individual therapy to address these issues. [ 63 ] The mother in particular needs to address the underlying causes of her bouts of illness and seriously consider following the advice of her psychiatrist and doctor to at least temporarily stop using marijuana to see if it helps with her health problems. [ 64 ] The parents must also continue to work together in order to coparent in a collaborative way that avoids the children from being exposed to their conflicts.

Various services are possible, whether it be in the community, privately, through the Superior court… and does not necessarily need to happen with both parents in the same room if they do now want to be. What is important is that this issue be

addressed in the children’s best interest. [ 65 ] It is also important that both parents, not just the father, participate in making important decisions regarding the children. The father has agreed to this and the Court will note his undertaking. [ 66 ] The current youth protection worker, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], has been involved for the last two years. She knows the family well and has established a relationship with the children and been able to bring significant improvements in the family’s functioning, particularly in the last months. X’s lawyer has asked that she remain in the file if possible.

The Court cannot order this but will certainly recommend it. [ 67 ] Finally, the Director has been involved with the family for several years and the situation remains fragile with additional work to be done and issues to be addressed by all family members.

The Court will therefore order that the present measures expire in one year, rather than the nine months recommended by the Director. [ 68 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 69 ] GRANTS the Applications; [ 70 ] DECLARES that the security or development of X and Y is in danger for psychological ill-treatment as well as for physical abuse by the mother on Y; [ 71 ] ENTRUSTS both children to their father; [ 72 ] ORDERS that the frequency and modality of contacts between the children and the mother be determined by the DYP, including supervision for as long as deemed necessary; [ 73 ] RECOMMENDS that the contacts between the children and the mother be maintained at their current frequency and increased over time with a goal to reach joint custody; [ 74 ] RECOMMENDS that X’s wish to spend one weekend per month with her father be taken into consideration; [ 75 ] ORDERS that X and Y both participate in individual therapy as long as deemed necessary by their treating professional; [ 76 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother receive services to address her marijuana dependency; [ 77 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother temporarily stop using marijuana to see if it helps with her health problems; [ 78 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother not use or be under the effects of marijuana while caring for the children; [ 79 ] RECOMMENDS that the mother continue to receive psychiatric services and follow her treatment plan consistently; [ 80 ] ORDERS the mother to inform the Director each time she resorts to Mrs.

C or another person to help caring for the children for medical reasons; [ 81 ] RECOMMENDS that both parents participate in individual therapy to address their personal issues; [ 82 ] RECOMMENDS that the father ensure that the mother is properly consulted in regard to important decisions regarding the children, taking note that the father has agreed to this; [ 83 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents participate in measures or programs to improve their co-parenting and ORDERS the Director to help the parents find the appropriate resources that offer these services; [ 84 ] ORDERS the parents refrain from denigrating each other in the presence of the children; [ 85 ] ORDERS the mother not to resort to any form of physical or verbal violence towards the children and to use disciplinary measures discussed and approved by the Director; [ 86 ] ORDERS that the parents provide Dr.

Mandich with a copy of Y’s psychological assessment and consult him in regard to ADHD medication, and RECOMMENDS that Dr.

Mandich’s recommendation be followed; [ 87 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the children and the family including the services of an educator for as long as deemed necessary; [ 88 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to meet alone with the children; [ 89 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to make unannounced visits to both parents’ homes and ORDERS that the parents allow the DYP into their home; [ 90 ] AUTHORIZES the DYP to receive and exchange information from all treating professionals; [ 91 ] RECOMMENDS that the current youth protection worker, Mrs. [Social Worker 1], remain responsible for the file; [ 92 ] THE WHOLE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR; [ 93 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of X and Y to the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services

sociaux A who shall see that these measures are carried out and these measures may be executed by any peace officer, if necessary. _________________________________ CLAUDE LAMOUREUX, J.C.Q. Signed on June 1st, 2023 M e Christine Waldvogel Attorney for the applicant M e Sabrina Tellier Attorney for the mother M e François Pelletier Attorney for the father M e Sophie Papillon Attorney for Y M e Guy-Luc Grondin Attorney for X Dates of hearing: November 14 & 15, 2022, May 10 & 11, 2023 CL/nl